Pipe tapping saddles are known from the prior art and serve to connect a branch line to a main pipe. Such tapping saddles are usually placed on the highest point of the outer circumference of the already laid main pipe, as a result of which the drilling is carried out into the main pipe vertically from above. Such a tapping T-piece is disclosed in DE 199 32 401. A disadvantage of such tapping T-pieces is the high loss of pressure owing to the high flow resistance which is generated by the multiple deviations of the medium which is first deviated by 90° via the tapping socket and then again by 90° in the branch socket.
There is furthermore a great disadvantage in its installed height. Because this tapping T-piece sticks up and because it protrudes above the main pipe, there is a high risk of the tapping T-piece becoming damaged during installation. In addition, because it sticks up, this form of tapping T-piece is liable to freeze up or the medium in the pipe tapping saddle is liable to freeze up.
U.S. Pat. No. 3,692,044 likewise discloses a tapping saddle where, despite the fact that it is capable of being mounted with a reduced installed height, multiple deviations of the medium are required through the channel between the tapping socket and the branch socket. The throughflow is severely restricted by the at least twofold deviation by 90°.
DE 196 03 254 A1 discloses a further embodiment of a tapping saddle with a V-shaped arrangement. Explicit reference is made here to the small installed height in the case of a proposed mounting angle of 90° to the crown position. However, the design differs explicitly from the design proposed here. In DE 196 03 254 A1, the drill and branch sockets are arranged in a common axial plane that lies through the pipeline. In addition, the tapping socket is angled, which can lead to problems during the tapping. A further point that should be mentioned is the point of intersection of the axes which is situated in the region of the saddle and not, as proposed here, in the region of the inside of the pipe. This has the consequence that the throughflow is reduced more strongly than with the proposed alternative embodiment.